Why Aggressors Lose

Bibliographic Data

ID6337668
AuthorsRalph K White (corresponding author)
Year1990
Volume11
Issue2
Pages227
Publication date1990-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0162-895X • E-ISSN: 1467-9221
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/3791688
OpenAlexW2318655636
LanguageEN
Citations received11
References cited2

Aggression between nations is defined here not as the starting of a war, but as any use or threat of force in another country, against the wishes of either the people or the government of that country. Regardless of definitions, however, there is much evidence that, since 1914, aggressors have usually lost in terms of their own long-term self-interest. Thirty examples are examined. In 20 of them the results are interpreted as bad for the aggressors, in 5 as good, and in 5 as ambiguous. (The opposite was the case before 1914.) The direct, tangible reasons for loss usually consist of unexpected resistance by the victims, unexpected intervention by other countries on behalf of the victims, or both; and underlying both of these there is evidently a great lack of realistic empathy with either the victims or their potential allies

Criminology · Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics · Military History and Strategy · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub